Perception-wise, my first impression is that it’s gimmicky, hence they’re compensating for something. Serious lack of fun in flight? Lack of rigour in operations? Of safety?

Environmentally thinking: full colour paint? Seriously? Carbon footprint for air travel is bad enough that a company not thinking about this makes me worry a little. OK, the recent “sobering” in airplane look may not be all environmentally driven, but it surely is economically, which tells me a part of the money I’d be giving them goes into fuel for excess weight and does not go into the flying experience or, worst, maintenance of the machine.

Still at first glance, not knowing anything more about this company’s services or seriousness, my money would go for a boring-look one. That is probably not what this company want. Yet, at $14SA, you can’t expect the designer to go too much into branding.

All of my worries and preceding critiques aside, I note by your excitement about this company that it is based on its design and look—without a single word about its services, security, etc—, that the hero of this story, here, seems to be the graphic design of the plane. Yet, you completely fail to mention who the designer is and would rather tout the company itself for paying very little on something seemingly so important in their success.

I know it’s very trendy for entrepreneurs and start-up investors to downplay the importance of graphic designers and paint them as snotty overpaid photoshoppers and encourage using them through humanly and financially hurtful (for the designer) crowd-sourcing contests, but by emphasizing the importance of this design for that flyer, and in the same paragraph insinuate it’s okay to underpay the designer, I cannot help to think the human factor has *completely* left the business world.